get_project_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: the output is an ordered ready queue, waiting tasks include unfinished dependencies, and results contain task summaries only, without objective or acceptance criteria. It does not state that the operation is read-only, or say how the view parameter changes the payload; 'read' implies read-only but leaves it implicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition, then the selection rule, then the limit on what the results contain and the pointer to get_task. Every clause earns its place with no restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, routing, and the shape of results well. The one clear gap is the meaning of the compact and full views, which is the only thing that changes what the caller gets back.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'view' (compact vs full) is never mentioned in the description. The description does say results omit objective and acceptance criteria, but since the view enum likely controls exactly that, it leaves the two levels of detail undefined and possibly ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: read the current project work and the ordered ready queue. It also sets the scope apart from the sibling get_task by saying results are summaries, not full definitions, so an agent can distinguish the two tools without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit selection condition ('Use this when no taskId is known'), an explicit alternative (call get_task for the full definition), and downstream guidance on which returned tasks to act on ('Choose only ready tasks with runnable=true'). It also explains that waiting tasks carry their unfinished dependencies, which prevents misinterpreting queue entries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.